Why You’ll Never Be Able To Upload Your Brain To The Cloud

Why You’ll Never Be Able To Upload Your Brain To The Cloud

It’s the dream of many and the inspiration for a number of science fiction stories: transferring the mind to an immortal robot body or uploading your consciousness into a network of computers. But unfortunately, there are insurmountable barriers to separating the body and the mind which prevents this from ever becoming a reality.

Upload your brain image from Shutterstock

Nicolas P Rougier is a researcher at the French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation (Inria)

But let’s assume that we’ve solved the problems of sensors and muscles and all the rest, and accept that the uploaded brain won’t truly reflect our mind. Now comes the big challenge: uploading the brain. But what is a brain exactly? This term usually refers to the cortex and possibly some subcortical structures, including the amygdala, hippocampus and basal ganglia. But the central nervous system is actually made of several other structures that are no less critical, including the cerebellum, thalamus, hypothalamus, medulla and brain stem.

Making the connections

If we consider the whole central nervous system, we are facing an average of 86 billion neurons, and each of these neurons contacts an average of 10,000 other neurons, representing a grand total of approximately 860 billion connections. This is really huge. So exactly what do we have to upload into the computer? The type, the size and the geometry of each neuron? Its current membrane potential? The size and position of the axon and its state of myelination? The complete geometry of the dendritic tree? The location of the various ion pumps? The number, the position and the state of the different neuro-mediators? Any of these could be critical, and they can only be taken into account in state-of-the-art computer models (and for a few neurons only). The problem is that we do not know exactly what it is that makes us who we are and different from anyone else (and I’m not even talking about learning).

As a fallback – and only if we had the proper tools to record each of these parameters once – we could try to transfer everything. However, this would require potentially some thousands or even millions of pieces of information for a single neuron. If you consider just the number of neurons, we would reach a figure in the zetta domain (for your information, the order is kilo, mega, giga, tera, peta, exa and zetta, multiplying by 1,000 at each step). This number is so huge that it cannot yet be manipulated as a whole by computer science. And we are talking only about the brain’s storage, because we also have to ensure that this model runs in real time, since nobody would happily accept a silicon mind that runs at reduced speed. From a purely technical perspective, we are thus very far (really very far) from making this to happen.

Worse, research indicates that Moore’s Law – which suggests that computer power doubles every 18 months – is reaching its limits, suggesting that we may never attain the necessary level of technology. The Human Brain Project foresaw this problem and planned from the beginning to use only simplified models of neurons and synapses. If you’re interested in more accurate models, take a look at the OpenWorm project, which doesn’t pretend to simulate any more than a few neurons.

The bird in the machine

This idea of transferring one’s brain into a machine is widespread in both literature and cinema. It has gained renewed interest with recent advances in artificial intelligence. However, there may be some confusion regarding what is actually artificial intelligence (AI) and what are its goals.

When media cover artificial intelligence, they generally refer to machine learning and robotics, neither of which really seeks to understand the brain or cognition (with some notable exceptions, such as the work of Pierre-Yves Oudeyer). This confusion likely stems from the fact that new algorithms have been designed that enable excellent performance on tasks that were previously thought to be reserved for humans – recognizing images, driving a car and so on.

But if machine learning and robotics are progressing at an amazing speed, this does not tell us anything about how the biological brain works (at least not directly). If we want to know, we have to look at neuroscience and more specifically at computational neuroscience. A parallel could be drawn between aeronautics (AI) and ornithology (neuroscience). Even though the early attempts at flying were directly inspired by the flight of birds, this was abandoned long ago in favor of the design of ever more efficient aircraft (speed, payload, etc) using techniques specific to aeronautics. To better understand birds, you must turn to ornithology and biology. Hence, talking about uploading a brain to a computer because of the progress of AI makes as much sense as gluing feathers on an airplane and pretending it’s an artificial bird.

No one knows if it will ever be possible to “upload a brain to a computer.” But what is certain today is that in the current state of science, this statement makes no sense and will remain so without a major epistemological breakthrough in our understanding of the brain and how it works.

This article was originally published on The Conversation.


  • The OP is very short sighted. You don’t need to connect all that stuff to make it possible to transfer the mind, all it needs is to be able to utilise the onboard setup. Walking talking and arms etc. will be autonomous, just think it and the machine obliges. They’ve already made major inroads for this tech, just think what they could do in 10, 20… years.
    Actually, all they’d need to make it work is to connect the vision and hearing centers!

    • It sounds like you’re just talking about connecting an existing brain to a robotic body. The article is talking about having a computer completely imitate/takeover the entirety of your brain functions. Very Very different things.

      • It’s a valid solution, the OP is overthinking the problem. So long as you have the same memories, experiences and emotions, then the simpler solution is the best, “Occam’s Razor” The other problem, which was not given a solution, is whether the transfer is just a copy or not.

        • You do realize your brain is not permanent, it requires constant cellular replenishment, and even then those replacement cells have a finite amount of cycles due to degradation of the telomeres on the end of chromosomes. The idea of transferring your brain functions to a computer means those aren’t issues any longer, but the computing power and functions to adequately emulate the functioning of a human brain are many many quantum leaps in computing away from being remotely possible.

          Also you’re using Occam’s razor incorrectly as well. Occam’s razor pertains to explanations of occurrences. The explanation that makes the fewest assumptions is usually the better explanation.

  • Well yes, but as we don’t know what causes consciousness yet, of course we can’t replicate it – not even a simpler version.

    However robot consciousness might not require a human number of neurons.

    But never say never – how about an insects brain first etc.

  • If its artificial intelligence, is the unconsciousness not simply the backup, re-index and run updates section of software?
    Never say never, I have invented a simple way to bridge knowledge. The next step is to find an investor prepared to consider the possibility that learning can be done by filtering.

  • as a neurobiologist in the making i believe that in the next 10 years we will be transplanting the first human artificial brain and we will be able to replace any damaged brain tissue with artificial brain tissue .


Show more comments

Comments are closed.

Log in to comment on this story!